Kentucky

After you read the following story, followed by the CJ editorial, you got to wonder how this spiraled out of control.  Neither lawyer, no judge willing to bend.  I actually liked the CJ editorial.  Yes, I know,,, it's shocking!

Louisville lawyer faces 6 months in jail for refusing to reveal client's name

Editorials: Editorial | Judicial standoff

The Jefferson County courtroom conflict that led to a veteran attorney's six-month sentence for contempt stems from a clash of several vitally important priorities. However this case is ultimately resolved, all parties should seek a resolution that upholds programs that protect children and affirms the integrity of the judicial system.

In the matter at hand, attorney Amelia ?Mikki? Adams sought a judge's ?bypass? approval to allow a minor to have an abortion without her parents' consent. Jefferson District Judge Annette Karem ruled in favor of Ms. Adams' client, but as the proceeding ended she asked Ms. Adams for the full name of the girl, who had been identified only as ?J.J.? The judge said that she needed the name in order to comply with state law that requires reporting suspected child abuse or neglect.

Ms. Adams ? who first said she didn't know the name, then corrected herself and apologized ? refused, saying that her client did not want her name disclosed and that she was ethically obliged to protect that attorney-client communication. Jefferson Circuit Judge Charles Cunningham Jr. subsequently upheld a contempt sentence for misleading the court, but he sent the citation for refusing to identify the girl back for further review.

First, it is a given that no attorney should ever mislead a judge. The courts can determine whether Ms. Adams actually intended to do that ? and whether she defied a lawful order ? but it must be understood that officers of the court are to tell the truth.

Second, the ?bypass? law is a critically important provision in states, such as Kentucky, that require minors seeking an abortion to obtain their parents' consent. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that girls must be given an alternative to anonymously seek a judge's approval. If these girls aren't assured their names will be kept secret, the law will be weakened severely and there will be greater risk that minors will attempt to end their own pregnancies through dangerous means.

Finally, child abuse is tragically prevalent. The principle underlying the state legal requirement that all abuse suspicions be reported for investigation is a solid one.

It is unfortunate that this case could not have been dealt with in a less confrontational and less threatening manner aimed at seeking compromise. Perhaps the discussions between Judge Karem and Ms. Adams could have been conducted in chambers rather than in a courtroom. Perhaps Judge Karem could have held off her ruling ? and sentences ? until higher courts could rule (expeditiously) on the merits of Ms. Adams' argument. Perhaps an investigator could have determined J.J.'s identity, and gotten information about the family situation, without Ms. Adams' assistance. And, finally, perhaps Ms. Adams could have been persuaded to promise to provide J.J.'s name if she lost her appeal.

There is a lot at stake in this case for children in daunting circumstances. Their interests must come first.